1971 (4) TMI 105 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Declaration of title to the suit properties.
2. Recovery of possession and mesne profits.
3. Recovery of fine and prohibitory assessment.
4. Alternative claim for the value of improvements.
5. Adverse possession claim.
6. Entitlement to value of improvements by a trespasser.
7. Validity of notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code.
8. Limitation period for filing the suit.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Declaration of Title to the Suit Properties:
The appellants sought a declaration of title to the properties, claiming they were part of Survey Nos. 1609, 2362, and 1629 of Ezhudesom village, registered in the name of the deceased Osan Pillai. However, the District Collector of Kanyakumari contested this, asserting that the properties were part of Survey Nos. 1610, 2363, and 1628, which are river poramboke lands. The Subordinate Judge of Nagercoil found that the plaintiffs failed to prove their claim, noting that P.W. 1, the power of attorney agent, lacked detailed knowledge of the properties, and P.W. 2's report was unreliable. The evidence from D.Ws. 1 and 2 confirmed that the suit properties were indeed river poramboke lands.

2. Recovery of Possession and Mesne Profits:
The appellants failed to establish their title to the suit properties, and consequently, their claim for recovery of possession and mesne profits at Rs. 1,500 per year was denied. The court emphasized that the appellants could not prove adverse possession for the requisite period under the law prevailing in Travancore State, which required fifty years.

3. Recovery of Fine and Prohibitory Assessment:
The appellants sought recovery of Rs. 1,780.63 paid as fine and prohibitory assessment. However, this claim was contingent upon establishing their title to the suit properties, which they failed to do. As a result, this claim was not upheld.

4. Alternative Claim for the Value of Improvements:
The appellants alternatively claimed Rs. 15,000 as the value of improvements made to the properties. The court acknowledged that the value of improvements in Travancore Cochin State is typically computed based on the capitalized income for 8 1/3 years. However, the Subordinate Judge found that the plaintiffs were not entitled to this value as they had encroached on canal poramboke, which the government does not assign to wrongful cultivators.

5. Adverse Possession Claim:
The appellants argued that they had been in possession of the suit properties for over seventy-five years, but evidence showed they had only been in possession for about thirty-five years. The court noted that the requisite period for adverse possession under the then-prevailing law in Travancore State was fifty years. Thus, the appellants failed to prove adverse possession.

6. Entitlement to Value of Improvements by a Trespasser:
The court discussed various precedents, noting that a trespasser acting in good faith might claim the value of improvements made. However, it concluded that trespassers on government land, particularly those encroaching on river poramboke, could not claim such value. Additionally, any claim for improvements must be made before eviction, which the appellants did not do.

7. Validity of Notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code:
The government pleader did not contest the validity of the notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code, implying that this procedural requirement was met by the appellants.

8. Limitation Period for Filing the Suit:
The government pleader questioned the trial court's findings regarding the limitation period. The court noted that although the first plaintiff did not appeal against the adverse orders of the Tahsildar, Section 19 of the Travancore-Cochin Land Conservancy Act allowed for an appeal within one year from the cause of action. The suit was deemed within time, but this point was ultimately moot given the findings on the main issues.

Conclusion:
The court confirmed the trial court's decree and judgment, dismissing the appeal with costs to the contesting first respondent. The appellants failed to prove their title, adverse possession, and entitlement to the value of improvements, and their claims were accordingly rejected.